Men and Abortion

so, what you are saying is that you are trying to find a solution for those rich men out there who can support two households, cover the medical care
for the uninsured mother, and are prepared if by some fluke in nature she becomes completely bedridden halfway through her pregnacy and needs heavy
duty care herself just to make it though pregnacy.....okay,
what about the rest of the male population, ya know, the ones that would be struggling just to hold onto one household??

by the way, companies SHOULD pay for maternity, doesn't mean they do, especially if it's for a long period of time....and some occupations will pose
a problem for the baby the minute it's conceived and well, then it's advisable for the mother to get herself of the contaminated environment as soon
as possible. the women I'm thinkin of at the moment, well, there seemed to be a disagreement over weather or not the company could compensate for
the limitations by moving her to another job within the company. well, the chemicals in question permeated the whole plant. they compromised and
laid her off.... guess the moral of the story would be that ya, it would be nice if the mother got maternity leave when it's needed, but don't
count on it...

so, congratulations, you found the solution for a part of the population that could afford to maintain the mother's current lifestyle, the added
expense of the baby, as well as the expense of changing his lifestyle to suit the newborn. to be quite honest, if I was in a position where a man was
willing and able to do such a thing, I'd be more than happy to oblige him!!

but, well, I kind of get the impression that well, you want legal remedies, force the women to have the baby, on the basis that the father says he
wants it and will pay for it.....soon, people will notice that most men cannot take avantage of this option, since, well, this costs alot of money!!!
so, it will be we'll all do the best we can, and the gov't will help as much as they can. if the man can't afford the two households, well, at
least he's willing to allow her to stay at his. if the mother who's been waiting patiently for years for the opportunitiy to reenter the workforce
and is finally now finally getting established, all the while in what is really an unhappy relationship, well she can just unestablish herself a
little longer....and well, if she isn't insured, I guess she can just settle for a home birth and dad can deliver right??....I swear to God, if I
ever become pregnant again, my husband will be delivering the kid!!!lol!!!

ya know, I'd go for it if the man can and is definately willing to do his part. I'd even wouldn't mind helping those who need a little help if
the social service system was a little more fair and just. but, well, many can't, or won't.and quite frankly, when it comes to the father or has
six kids all from different women, who suddenly finds he wants this particular baby....I don't want to help!!! matter of fact, I would prefer the
mother just abort the baby, and well as an extra perk, if she's stupid enough to allow someone like that to impregnant her, well, I'll even happily
pitch in the extra cost of a tubal!!!

Originally posted by jlc163
1. Give me a way to help her directly. If she's willing to work for it, and she ain't popping out her own football team, I'll see what I can do
to help her myeslf.

I point blank stated when they are willing to fight for the things they need for their kids, I'm more than willing to help them, so none of my
comments were directed at her.

I'm thinking about some 15-40 people I've worked with since I first started working. Had programs that would get them out of mess of a life they
created for themselves and wouldn't even try. Didn't even apply for the programs. I'm talking about minimum wage jobs in an area where there are
more jobs than people. All you need is some half-mangled attempt to get a job better than minimum wage around here. You only need 1 person to
support a hosehold down here, as long as you can find a babysitter. And I'm talking about with no education.

2. Do they own the company? I don't give a damn what they do with their profits/what they earn, as it is theirs to do things with. If they are
cheating the company, or something similar, they need to be taken down any way possible that is not endangering everyone else. If they don't pay
the right price for the services, look eslewhere for employment, and use them as experience. If you are in an economically tight area, and this is
the only job y'all can get, then it ain't just the working mothers who are in trouble, it's hoseolds of any sort, altogether. Raising the mnimum
wage would mean that one of you would likely lose your job, as well.

both her and me make more than minimum wage.......have you noticed the cost of living now days......
and where do live that it takes only one person making a low wage to support a household?? it definately ain't NY, and I imagine it isn't Va
either!!

as far as giving you a way to help her directlyl.....what you want me to do, have her write you a letter, hey I know, she can tell you about how she
is looking for another job, but really needs to make sure that is has at least the same health coverage as she has now. but well, we both know that
the other companies are all offering about the same amount for wages anyways. hey, I know, she can tell you about the battle she's had with cancer
the last couple of years, and how she really has no idea how the hell she's gonna pay for the medicine now that the health insurance company's
premiums went up and so the company downgraded their coverage, and we all now have to pay for our perscriptions out of pocket and then be reimbursed
now!!

-----------------------------

"If you are in an economically tight area, and this is the only job y'all can get, then it ain't just the working mothers who are in trouble, it's
hoseolds of any sort, altogether. "

----------------------------

BINGO!!! give this person a cigar!!! so, by all means force women to have more babies that they can't afford, let's create a bigger mess of
things!!!

---------------------------
"Raising the mnimum wage would mean that one of you would likely lose your job, as well."
------------------------------

ya see, this is where I disagree with ya....if we did away with the social service system that subsidize these employees, they'd find a way to
accomodate a living wage for them, they'd have to!! they need the employees, or there is no business. and, if they couldn't pay their employees a
suitable wage, and turn a profit, well, maybe it's not a lucritive business??

Originally posted by dawnstar
"then BOTH should have equal say in what happens to the child. At the point of a disagreement, the one who is willing to look after the child SHOULD
take priority IF they can assure(legally if required) that they intend to take on full responsibility AND if its the father, that he looks after the
needs of the mother while she is pregnant."

the doctor decides her job is endangering the child, so the father can make her quite her job, he'll look after her needs. of course, he can't
afford her apartment and his, so well, I guess she can give up her apartment and live in his. she can also disregard whatever it is she feels that
she needs and accept his assessment of her needs.....
she can become dependant on him.....hopefully by the time the child is born, she will become attached to it, but in this dependant state, she will not
be able to break free from him and regain her apartment back...she will be forever his, or at least his until the child is old enough that she can
hold a job, of course by the time this happens, she will be pregnant again!!!
[edit on 23-7-2006 by dawnstar]

who said anything about the woman being dependent on the man? or giving up her job? or having her apartment stolen?!?! And how on earth does nine
months maker her "forever his"? try as i might, I can't see how any of this can be inferred form the quoted paragraph. You really do make
pregnancy sound like a cruel scheme dreamt up by men just to keep women down!

In the end, I think it evens out. The man can always cut and run out on a pregnant woman and completely abandon her, the fetus and the entire
situation. Women don't have that option at all, period.

I think forcing a woman to have a child is an absolutely ridiculous idea. It is a violation of her body. If she is forced to carry it to term, what
if she has a miscarriage and ends up in prison for the rest of her life for murder? Would she be blamed for the miscarriage?

Then there are the guys with a hidden agenda. How about a guy getting a woman pregnant so that she has to carry his child. He does this so that he can
keep the woman from leaving him. He can hit her, be otherwise abusive to her, but she still has to carry the baby to term?

I agree with the person who said, women are just now coming out of the position of being kept down and controlled through them being pregnant. A
forced pregnancy is just more of the same kind of sexist thinking that is pervasive in our society. I decide what happens to my body, no one else has
the right.

Originally posted by forestlady
A forced pregnancy is just more of the same kind of sexist thinking that is pervasive in our society. I decide what happens to my body, no one else
has the right.

Your rights end when it interferes with another's rights.

Surely the only kind of forced pregnancy is rape, which would of course be a special case... and an abortion should of course be allowed.

A woman who doesn't what to get pregnant has that choice, through either abstinence or contraception. If she want's to "cut and run"(!), she can
put up the baby for adoption, or hand it over to the father... again, it's her choice!

This is not about someone deciding what happens to a woman's body. She already, quite rightly, HAS control over that. this is about what happens to
the unborn child's body.

I think it is actually illegal for a company either to not pay a woman for maternity leave or fire her for being pregnant. It is sexual discrimination
and if anyone on here has experienced this I think you have a good case for suing the company.

As for men 'keeping' pregnant women and being allowed to be physically, verbally or otherwise violent to her of course that would be completely
wrong. The idea that pregnant women would be kept is wrong. The idea is that women will carry the child, when she chooses take maternity leave, have
the man provide for her needs (financial, emotional etc) and those of the child, while she chills out, writes a book, chills with friends, watches TV
or whatever she wants to do. After the child is born she is free to do whatever she wants to do.
She doesn't have to be kept in a cage in the man's garage and impregnated immediately afterwards.

" 3. There's prices to pay on both sides of the coin. I'm not going to take my stupidity out on a baby. If it means life isn't going to play nice,
then so be it. I'll work when I can. I'll work when I have to, and I'll be submissive when it's necessary for the welfare of my kids. "

----------------------------------------------------

well, once in that position, not having sex because you don't want another kid kind of flies out the window, doesn't it??

When a man impregnates a woman, she possesses the resulting zygote. The male, at that point, has lost complete control of his DNA. If the mother
decides to abort the fetus, no one can legally stop her. If she wants to bring it to term, it's her decision and no one can legally stop her.

Once that sperm enters the egg, the man has lost control over the future of his resulting offspring. The woman's complicity in the act means
nothing. From the moment of conception, the man's life will proceed just as the woman desires.

Every man should consider this before he decides that he is going to have sex. If anyone disputes this assessment, that individual need only read
this thread. When a man impregnates a woman, he is forever at her mercy.

Well, Grady, I was with you till the 'forever at her mercy' part, but I totally agree that men need to be more thoughtful about the consequences of
sex. It's not just the woman who will end up pregnant and possibly forever changed.

If she has the baby, then yes, the man will be held responsible for support of the child, but "forever at her mercy"? I suppose that's possible,
but if she has an abortion, there's no need to be at anyone's mercy.

But the first part of your post says very well what I've been trying to get across for 5 pages now!

If the woman has the abortion, with or without the man's complicity, he will always live with that decsion. That's what I meant by "forever at her
mercy." I guess you might have to live it to understand it.

No, I understand that perfectly, it was the first time you said it that I didn't get it. Thanks for the explanation.

And I think you're right. I could never really understand what it would be like to want a woman to go through with a pregnancy and have no recourse,
no ability to change her mind. That would indeed be terrible.

And likewise, I don't think the guys can possibly understand what it would be like to be forced by law to give up control of one's own body without
their consent.

It's a terrible situation and that's why everyone, men and women need to be drilled about the consequences of unprotected sex. That's why it's
important to use several methods of birth control. If the man is 100% sure and the woman is 100% sure that they've done all they can to prevent
pregnancy, then this situation isn't going to happen very often at all.

A man cannot have the rights to a woman's body because that is HER right.

So let me see here, a man cannot have a say in an abortion issue (even though he is the father of the baby) because that would interfere with
another person’s rights and body. However a woman can choose to kill a baby even though that action interferes with the baby’s right to live?
Sorry I’m having trouble understanding this concept.

Personally If I agreed to have sex with a woman for the purpose of producing a child and later that same woman decides that she no longer wants that
baby, well, let’s just say that UPSET wouldn’t even being to describe how I would feel. There should be a legal binding contract, If you and I
agree to have a baby and you become pregnant you should be obligated to give birth to that child (unless you are somehow in physical danger) and I
should be obligated to support you and the child, that IMO is very fair.

Let me just say that I am against abortions except in special cases, such as rape, or if the woman is in mortal or extreme physical danger.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
There should be a legal binding contract, If you and I agree to have a baby

I think the issue may be more unintended pregnancy.. otherwise that'd be a very drastic and callous change of mind IMO. [Btw.. I think it was
originally called 'marriage'.

]

and you become pregnant you should be obligated to give birth to that child (unless you are somehow in physical danger) and I should be
obligated to support you and the child, that IMO is very fair.

In the event of an unplanned pregnancy; how do you propose this legal obligation be enforced? I understand the moral obligation.. but if she resists..
should she be sent to jail till she gives birth just in case she sneaks off to a backyarder? Thats what it would have to come down to. I've asked
this many times before and the question is usually avoided. Perhaps thats why some don't want to address this as the 'shalt not kill' and the
'free will' thing kind of conflict with eachother.

I'd also like to know.. what if a man decides [with his new found 'rights'] that a woman should have an abortion but she doesn't want to? Who gets
the final say?

ya know, men or women, abortion or no abortion, this is oh, so, very true!!!

once a child enters the picture for any couple, they are both "at the mercy" of the other. she will have to count on him and well, if he fails and
just doesn't feel like doing what is needed, well, she will have to make up for his shortcomings, or face the repercussions of it not being done.
and he will have to count on her, and well, if she fails, or decides not to do what is needed, he will have to make up for her shortcomings, or face
the repercussions of it not being done. doesn't matter if the couple never got married, are married, or are divorced, this will be true.

I think it's a matter of who should you trust, who can you count on in a bind, and who's gonna tend to bail out on you at the first sign of
trouble.

thinking of it this way, well, there really isn't any inequality at all, since both male and female are equally good at bailing out, not meeting the
task, and putting in a half arsed effort!!

the moral of the story.....really consider just who you chose to create babies with!!

Originally psote dby rileyp
I think the issue may be more unintended pregnancy.. otherwise that'd be a very drastic and callous change of mind IMO. [Btw.. I think it was
originally called 'marriage'.

In the context of this argument I’d have to say the woman should have the final say in an unintended pregnancy type of situation. However in my
personal opinion no one should have any say since I think any abortion unless for the reasons I listed above should be illegal. BTW at the rate
divorces are happening nowadays Marriage looks like a dying trend.

And even if you’re married you still can’t force your wife to have children with you, but in that case it’s you own fault for marrying such a
person, unless you were misled, in which case you should’ve gotten a prenuptial.

Originally psote dby rileyp
In the event of an unplanned pregnancy; how do you propose this legal obligation be enforced?

It can’t, unless the people agreed to it beforehand, so like I said in this context the woman should have the final say, and it will remain that way
unless abortion is once again made illegal in which case her decision is irrelevant. So if you’re a guy and you’re willing to support a child from
an unintended pregnancy but your partner isn’t, well try to get here to sign the slip otherwise don’t do it.

But you see this is all hypothetical, there is no mechanism in place for legal binding agreements/contracts like this, hence my frustration that a man
cannot have any say in an abortion case under any circumstances, that IMO is not just.

Originally psote dby rileyp
I understand the moral obligation.. but if she resists.. should she be sent to jail till she gives birth just in case she sneaks off to a backyarder?
Thats what it would have to come down to. I've asked this many times before and the question is usually avoided. Perhaps thats why some don't want
to address this as the 'shalt not kill' and the 'free will' thing kind of conflict with eachother.

Well, under my proposed method, yes if she later refuses then she should be forced to oblige by the agreement (unless the other partner agrees to also
terminate said agreement) if that means 24/7 supervision, well yeah. Same goes for the guy and his end of the bargain.

But again as I stated above since there is no legal way to ensure this some people may be driven to extremes. If given the right circumstances I might
just do something rash like decide that this child living is worth me facing a jury and possible prison time.

Originally psote dby rileyp
I’d also like to know.. what if a man decides a woman should have and abortion but she doesn't want to? Who gets the final say?

See above.

---------

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
To quote those hopelessly old-fashioned adults of the long ago days of my youth: "A moment of pleasure is not worth a lifetime of
misery."

In the event of an unplanned pregnancy; how do you propose this legal obligation be enforced? I understand the moral obligation.. but if she resists..
should she be sent to jail till she gives birth just in case she sneaks off to a backyarder? Thats what it would have to come down to. I've asked
this many times before and the question is usually avoided. Perhaps thats why some don't want to address this as the 'shalt not kill' and the
'free will' thing kind of conflict with eachother.

I'd also like to know.. what if a man decides [with his new found 'rights'] that a woman should have an abortion but she doesn't want to? Who gets
the final say?

[edit on 24-7-2006 by riley]

NO, she shouldn't be placed in Prison for something she may do, BUT she should be aware that if there is a Termination and it has not been officially
cleared by either a Doctor for Medical Reasons or that both parties have not agreed on abortion, that she will be up for some form of Prosecution.

As faras 'who gets the final say', it should be the person who wants the child to live, who is willing to care for the child.

i fear that i will be unclear and unintelligible in my response, but some of the things in this thread have evoked thought or emotion in me.

First, I am fully of the opinion that until Man can carry a child, he cannot have ultimate say about whether the Woman decides to carry a child. And
the suggestion that the woman might be lazy for choosing not to carry the child was appauling to me.

Second, although this may not be fully legally correct, the reality of many child support cases is that if the father wishes no contact with his child
(whether he would have had it aborted or not) he typically will not end up paying child support. Heck, the way the system is now, child support hardly
gets paid even when the father claims the child and is in (minimal) contact. So, making the mother carry the child, and then forcing her to pay child
support for a child she did not want seems wrong to me...if she did for some reason consent to carry the child, she should be allowed to give up legal
rights to it, essentially having the father adopt full custody.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.